Matter of McElligott v Nassau County Civil Service Commission
Petitioner, Maurice McElligott, brought about this Article 78 proceeding to review the determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission psychologically disqualifying him from probationary employment as a police officer. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering Nassau County Civil Service Commission to produce the written protocol used to determine passage or non-passage of petitioner’s MMPI-2 test. The Commission then appealed this decision.
In 2003, petitioner applied to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission (the Commission) for a position as a Nassau County police officer. He passed the written exam and other tests but was required to schedule an appointment for a psychological interview following his completion of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory II (MMPI-2). After completing the psychological interview, petitioner was then directed to make an appointment with a psychiatrist. Petitioner was then informed that he failed to meet the psychological requirements of the position and therefore was psychologically disqualified. Petitioner submitted two independent psychological evaluations and numerous personal recommendations and requested the Commission reconsider his disqualification. The Commission reaffirmed its determination and petitioner commenced this Article 78 appeal finding the disqualification arbitrary and capricious and based upon a subjective reaction to his personality rather than based on any objective criteria.
The Commission explained in its answer that the first stage of the psychological screening process includes a group administration of the MMPI-2. Applicants that fall within the accepted range are not subjected to further psychological testing while applicants with scores outside the normal range must complete an in-person interview with a clinical psychologist. According to his affidavit, the psychologist who completed petitioner’s interview said that contrary to the claims of the Commission, all candidates’ MMPI-2 results are reviewed by a psychologist and then interviewed. The Court found the statements by the Commission and the staff psychologist to be in opposition and directed the Commission to produce the actual protocol used to determine whether petitioner’s scores were within the normal MMPI-2 range.
The Commission argued that the courts order constituted an attempt to interfere with its discretion to determine the qualifications of police officers. The Court disagrees and feels that the evidence demanded, the written protocol for determining whether a given candidate’s MMPI-2 score fell outside of a pre-determined normal range triggering the need for an in-person psychological evaluation, was relevant.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision, without costs or disbursements.